HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2803 of 1983 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Jagdish, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A appearing for the State. 2. On 06.08.2025 following order was passed by this Court :- "1. Learned counsel for the applicant is present. 2. In compliance of the earlier order dated 23.07.2025, no report has been submitted by the Registry, whether any requisition of lower court record was made by the Registry. 3. In view thereof, Registry is directed to issue a letter to the District Judgeship- Saharanpur, requisitioning the remains of lower court record in S.T. No. 416 of 1982, which was decided on 16.11.1983 by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge- Saharanpur. 4. In case, the record of the case is not available before the trial court, then, report be also submitted by the District Judge concerned whether the reconstruction of the record is possible. If not, whether there are any chance of re-trial of the instant case. 5. List this mater on 09.09.2025 in daily cause list alongwith the record of the trial court concerned. 6. Till then, the non-bailable warrants issued earlier shall be kept in abeyance." 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a report has been received from the In- Charge District Judge, Saharanpur dated 04.10.2025, according to which, except original trial court judgement all other papers have been weeded out and re-construction of the same is not possible. Therefore re-trial of the case is also not possible. 4. The instant case is of the year 1982 and the re-trial of the case is not possible for which a report has been received from the Additional District & Sessions Judge, dated 03.10.2025. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.N.Mulla, Ajay Kumar Jagdish, P.N.Mulla Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Yashpal .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Abhai Raj Singh and another [2004 (2) JIC 337 (SC)] submits that in the instant case, the appeal cannot be heard for want of record. Thus the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the instant case. In Abhairaj (supra) the Apex Court has held as under:- "We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. It is to be noted at this juncture that one of the respondents i.e. Om Pal has died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. The High Court shall direct re-construction of the records within a period of six months from the date of receipt of our judgment from all available or possible sources with the assistance of the Prosecuting Agency as well as the defending parties and their respective counsel. If it is possible to have the records reconstructed to enable the High Court itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner envisaged under Section 386 of the Code, rehear the appeals and dispose of the same, on its own merits and in accordance with law. If it finds that re- construction is not practicable but by order retrial interest of justice could be better served - adopt that course and direct retrial - and from that stage law shall take its normal course. If only reconstruction is not possible to facilitate High Court to hear and dispose of the appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication by Sessions Court is also rendered impossible due to loss of vitally important basic records - in that case and situation only, the direction given in the impugned judgment shall operate and the matter shall stand closed. The appeals are accordingly disposed of." 6. The record of the trial court has been weeded out and before this Court and only a copy of the judgement of trial court is available and no copy of the other document/material are available on record. The construction of the case record is also attempted but that could not be materialized. Since the case is of the year 1982, and about 43 years have been passed, as such, at this stage the re-trial of the instant case is not possible. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted for want of the record. 8. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of for want of original record and the appellant herein is acquitted. Bail Bonds are cancelled, sureties are also discharged. October 8, 2025 Vinod. CRLA No. 2803 of 1983 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad